User talk:Elivernois3/sandbox

Lead Section: The lead section discusses what the zinc biogeochemical cycle is, and the rest of the article is based on the lead sentence. I liked how the article covered the lithosphere, biosphere, and hydrosphere. Structure: I liked how the article was broken up into the natural zinc cycle and the anthropogenic influences on the zinc cycle. I think the way the paragraphs were structured made sense as well. Coverage: The content of the article was very in-tune with the content from the figure. The article was concise and had a lot of information packed in. I think it may be good to link together the marine zinc cycle with the terrestrial zinc cycle through talking about rivers or runoff. Content: The article is written in a neutral tone. There aren't any opinions added to the article, only the scientific facts, however, I feel as though some of the sentences are a bit informal, such as using "like" over "such as" or "for example". Sources: The Rauch and Pacyna paper is listed twice in the references section (as source 1 and 4) where it should only be listed once. The sources are all reliable and neutral, and the information in the article links up to what the cited articles state. I think the last sentence of the Anthropogenic sources section should be cited. Figure: I think that the text blends in with the background of the figure a bit. Maybe changing the color of the text to white or a gray would help improve readability. Additionally, using superscripts for scientific notation would clean up the figure. The arrows are a little bit skinny as well, so they are hard to see against the background. Other than that, great job.

Overall, the information is presented in an interesting way, and the article is well-written. I look forward to seeing the finished article!